100 mm macro lens

Males and females were separated by examining each specimen for the presence of an aedeagus. Using a jig, each pinned male specimen was then visually aligned to a standardized position and orientation in order to make lateral photographic images (Canon 500D camera body fitted with a Canon 100 mm macro lens set to manual focus) from which measurements were made (Fig. 1). Because the head, pronotum and elytra move in relation to one another, two images were made for each specimen, one for measuring elytral length and one for measuring horn length in side view. For measuring elytron length, the specimen was viewed from the side and tilted slightly until the elytral suture became entirely visible when the camera was triggered and the photograph stored for measurement. A measurement was then made from the anterior end of the left elytron along the margin to the posterior end. For measuring horn length, the specimen was tilted until the maximum visible horn area was seen and the second photograph was stored. The measurement was made from where the horn starts rising off the clypeus to the furthest tip of the horn. Each image had a gauge of known length to scale the images. Measurements were made using the program Analyzing Digital Images by John Pickle (Concord Academy; formerly, Museum of Science, Boston). Terminology for the male genitalia follows Medina et al. (2013) .

To analyze the cement penetration, digital photographs (72 dpi) were made of each cross-section using a Canon EOS 30D camera and a 100-mm macrolens on a tripod on a standardized setup (►Fig. 4) . A measuring staff to correct for any magnification error accompanied every cross-section. Adobe Photoshop (version 13.0.1) was used to analyze the images.
To exclude the irregularities around the tibial fin, two standardized areas (one anterior and one posterior of the fin) of 600 Â 600 pixels (averaging 1.5 Â 1.5 cm) were measured. Using the "Magic Wand tool," the area with cement was selected and measured (►Fig. 5). To acquire the average penetration depth, the measured total area was divided by the total length. If there were areas without cement, the separate areas were measured and added to achieve the total area and length.
The femur was analyzed in a similar manor, again using the "Magic Wand tool." We made a distinction between the ante-rior, distal (including anterior and posterior chamfer cuts), and posterior surfaces (►Fig. 6). The distal, anterior, and posterior surfaces were again analyzed for average cement penetration, as described by the method earlier. Due to the fact that in both techniques the cement was applied on the posterior condyles of the femoral implant, we did not compare these results.

In this study we examined specimens and photographs of specimens housed in the following depositories: The order which the descriptions follow is the same as the species key out in the key below.
Locality labels are reported verbatim with author comments in square brackets.
Color photographs were obtained using a Canon 500D body with either a Canon 100mm macro lens or Canon 65mm MPE 1-5x zoom lens. Image stacking was done using Helicon remote and Helicon focus software.